I recently discovered this documentary and I wanted to share it with all of you. You may be familiar with some of the information presented here, but I’ll bet you will learn some new information as well (I know I did).

The creator of this documentary skillfully compresses the history of the “New World Order” from the ancient past into the present and makes the information accessible – even to those who may be totally new to the subject.

I strongly encourage you to check this out and to share it with your friends & family. It shows how we got to where we are today and what we are up against.

Next, for those of you that doubt the accuracy of my analysis; who choose to belittle the depth of my research or the reluctance I had to overcome in order to face the horrible truth…..Please read this article. *ALL* the links you see embedded in this very well-researched piece completely back-up the author’s statements. I suggest, for the 50% of you out there that still choose to believe the official mythology regarding 9/11 that you spend some time clicking and reading these links.

You can start by viewing this compilation of the free-fall collapse of building 7 and checking out the related info from http://buildingwhat.org/

According to the Government’s own report, that 47 story, reinforced building that you just saw from different angles collapse perfectly into it’s own foot-print at free-fall speed……collapsed due to FIRE.

Makes you wonder why they bother using explosives at all? Why not just set old buildings on fire?

I hope on this anniversary of the terror-attacks, you remember all the innocent lives lost here and abroad, and the ever-increasing destruction of our bill of rights…..all for a LIE.

I don’t talk about 9/11 much anymore. Those that know…know. Those that don’t…well, maybe when “Homeland Security” starts conducting random searches in their homes they will wake-up. But I doubt it.

• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

If even the 9/11 Commissioners don’t buy the official story, why do you?

Senior intelligence officers:

• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this)

• A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”

• A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job

• Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

If there is bipartisan questioning of the official story, why aren’t you questioning it?

• Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

• Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence”

In our daily life we are not aware that we may, in fact, live in a hologram and our existence is a holographic projection, nothing more.

All what we believe is real, our whole physical world, is – in fact – an illusion being proved by the holographic universe, one of the most remarkable theories of 20th century.

Energy fields are decoded by our brains into a 3D picture, to give the illusion of a physical world.

Despite its apparent materiality, the universe is a kind of 3-D projection and is ultimately no more real than a hologram.

“Our brain mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time:

The brain is a hologram enfolded in a holographic universe!”

And this is an essence of Bohm and Pribram’s theories which enable us to look at the world – in a new way.

The idea is astonishing and even disturbing but was pioneered quite a long time ago by two of the world’s most prominent scientists: American-born British physicist David Bohm (1917 – 1992), widely considered one of the best quantum physicists of all time and protégé of Albert Einstein and the quantum physicist and a neurophysiologist at Stanford University, Austrian-born, Karl Pribram, who, in fact predicted the holographic nature of perception and memory.

They were the main supporters of this great theory; they worked independently and from completely different directions, but they reached the same conclusions.

Both scientists were dissatisfied with standard theories that could not explain diverse phenomena encountered in quantum physics and puzzles related to neurophysiology of the brain.

A remarkable experiment was conducted in 1982, by a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect at the Institute of Theoretical And Applied Optics, in Paris.

The experiment demonstrated that the web of subatomic particles that composes our physical universe – the so-called “fabric of reality itself” – possesses what appears to be an undeniable “holographic” property.

The holographic theory of the world comprehensively includes not only reality as we know it but also unexplained phenomena.

It’s capable to explain paranormal and out-of-body experiences, telepathy, “lucid” dreaming and much more. The holographic model has received much scientific and experimental support.

Aspect’s experimental finding, is a compelling piece of evidence that the universe is a hologram and has never been – real. His experiment is one of the most important experiments of the 20th century and will probably change the face of science, forever.

Aspect, along with his colleagues Jean Dalibard and Gerard Roger discovered that under certain conditions subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn’t matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing.

The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein’s long-held belief that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light.

Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect’s findings. However, it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations, all based on assumption that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and wonderfully detailed hologram.

Karl Pribram realized that the objective world – does not exist, at least not in the way as we know it or as we see it.

“Out there”, there are only waves and frequencies, which our brain convert for us into images, which make up our world. Our brain is responsible that we see things as we do!
Pribram asserted that our brain is able to construct objects and David Bohm even concluded that “we construct space and time”.

Two great scientists had independent but common conclusions and it’s made their theory of a holographic universe so great.

But even Bohm did not believe any theory to be correct in an absolute sense, including… his own.

We have to believe, precisely as David Bohm did, that at some point in the future, sophisticated techniques will be developed which will allow his own ideas and even others, to be tested and proved correct.

“The quantum is the greatest mystery we’ve got. Never in my life was I more up a tree than today,” John Wheeler.

Quantum theory is bizarre. In order to try and understand it we need to forget everything we know about cause and effect, reality, certainty, and much else besides. This is a different world, it has its own rules, rules of probability that make no sense in our everyday world. Richard Feynman, the greatest physicist of his generation, said of quantum theory

‘It is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain it in any classical way’.

Quantum theory is much more than just bizarre, it is also without doubt the most amazing theory in existence. If after reading this section you are not totally amazed by it, then the fault will be mine, for I will have failed to reveal to you its deep underlying significance. This theory is not just about experiments and equations, it reveals something extraordinary about our very understanding of what constitutes reality.

This is a very complex theory, and in order to fully do it justice it would require at least a fair sized book. However, in order to grasp the basic principles involved it will suffice to study just three key experiments. The three experiments are generally known as: the ‘Double Slit Experiment’, Schrödinger’s ‘Cat-in-the-Box Experiment’ and the ‘EPR Paradox’.

We will start with the famous double slit experiment as it demonstrates beautifully the central mystery of quantum theory. Quantum theory however, needs some introduction before we get too involved in the experiment.

The standard explanation of what takes place at the quantum level is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation. This is because much of the pioneering work was carried out by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, who worked in Copenhagen. Quantum theory attempts to describe the behaviour of very small objects, generally speaking the size of atoms or smaller, in much the same way as relativity describes the laws of larger everyday objects. We find it necessary to have two sets of rules because particles do not behave in the same way as larger everyday objects, such as billiard balls. We can, for example, say precisely where a billiard ball is, what it is doing, and what it is about to do. The same cannot be said for particles. They are, quite literally, a law unto themselves, and why this should be so is a source of much debate. The classic experiment to illustrate this is the famous double slit experiment, originally devised to determine if light travels as waves or particles. Feynman said of it:

‘Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, “You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? It’s the same thing.”‘

The double slit experiment.

If light travels as particles we can imagine particles of light (photons) as bullets fired from a rifle. Imagine a brick wall with two holes in it, each the same size and large enough to fire bullets through, with a second wall behind where the bullets will strike. After firing a few rounds you would expect to see on the second wall two clusters of hits in line with the two holes. This is of course precisely what you get with bullets, so if we get the same result with photons we can say they are particles.

Now imagine that instead of particles, that light travels as a wave, we can replicate that with a water tank. As the wave spreads out from its source it would reach both holes at the same time and each hole would then act as a new source. Waves would then spread out again from each of the holes, exactly in step, or in phase, and as the waves moved forward, spreading as they go, they would eventually interfere with one another. Where both waves are lifting the water surface upward, we get a more pronounced crest; where one wave is trying to create a crest and the other is trying to create a trough the two cancel out and the water level is undisturbed. The effects are called constructive and destructive interference.

If we carried out this procedure with light instead of water, and if light travels as waves, then the pattern on the second wall would appear as an interference pattern of alternate dark and light bands across the wall. Particles, on the other hand, would produce two separate areas of light (where the bullets would hit). This experiment has in fact been carried out many, many times, with the same results every time, and the results are nothing less than amazing.

When the experiment is set up as shown in the above diagram, with both slits open, the resulting interference pattern clearly shows that light behaves as a wave. Now if that was all there was to it we could all fold up our tents and go home happy in the knowledge that light travels as a wave; but there is much more to it than that. This is where the word ‘weird’ can become over-used.

If the experiment is set up to fire individual photons, so that only one photon at a time goes through the set up, we would not expect the same interference pattern to build up; we would surely expect that a single photon would only go through one hole or another, it cannot go through both at the same time and create an interference pattern. So what happens?

If we wait until enough individual photons have passed through to build up a pattern – and this takes millions of photons – we do not get two clusters opposite the two holes, we get the same interference pattern! It is as if each individual photon ‘knows’ that both holes are open and gives that result. Each individual photon, passing through the set up will place itself on the wall in such a position that when enough have passed through they have collectively built up an interference pattern, when there cannot possibly be any interference!

If we repeat the experiment, this time with only one hole open, the individual photons behave themselves and all cluster round a point on the detector screen behind the open hole, just as you would expect. However, as soon as the second hole is opened they again immediately start to form an interference pattern. An individual photon passing through one of the holes is not only aware of the other hole, but also aware of whether or not it is open!

We could try peeking, to see which hole the photon goes through, and to see if it goes through both holes at once, or if half a photon goes through each hole. When the experiment is carried out, and detectors are placed at the holes to record the passage of electrons through each of the holes, the result is even more bizarre. Imagine an arrangement that records which hole a photon goes through but lets it pass on its way to the detector screen. Now the photons behave like normal, self respecting everyday particles. We always see a photon at one hole or the other, never both at once, and now the pattern that builds up on the detector screen is exactly equivalent to the pattern for bullets, with no trace of interference. As if that was not bad enough, it gets even worse! We do not need place detectors at both holes, we can get the same result by watching just one hole. If a photon passes through a hole that does not have a detector, it not only knows if the other hole is open or not, it knows if the other hole is being observed! If there is no detector at the other hole as well as the one it is passing through, it will produce an interference pattern, otherwise it will act as a particle. When we are watching the holes we can’t catch out the photon going through both at once, it will only go through one. When we are not watching it will go through both at the same time! There is no clearer example of the interaction of the observer with the experiment. When we try to look at the spread-out photon wave, it collapses into a definite particle, but when we are not looking it keeps its options open.

What the double slit experiment demonstrates is this: Each photon starts out as a single photon – a particle – and arrives at the detector as a particle, but appears to have gone through both holes at once, interfered with itself, and worked out just where to place itself on the detector to make its own small contribution to the overall interference pattern. This behaviour raises a number of significant problems! Does the photon go through both holes at the same time? How does a photon go through both holes at the same time? How does it know where to place itself on the detector to form part of the overall pattern? Why don’t all the photons follow the same path and end up in the same place?

As a possible explanation it could perhaps be said that this is just one more example of the extraordinary nature of light, after all it does have some very unusual properties. Photons have no rest mass for example, a very odd property! Light is also unique in that it always travels at the same speed. However you move, and however the light source moves, when you measure the speed of light you always come up with the same answer. By way of comparison, two cars approaching each other and each having a speed of 30 mph will be approaching each other at a speed of 60 mph. Two light beams, both travelling of course at the speed of light, will be approaching each other at the speed of light, not twice the speed of light. Perhaps the weird behaviour of photons in the experiment is due to the weird nature of light. Unfortunately further experiments have demonstrated that this is not the case. Electrons have been used instead of photons, and they not only have mass, they have an electric charge, and furthermore they move at different speeds depending on circumstances, like normal everyday objects. The double slit experiments still gives the same result using electrons as it does using photons; electrons also alter their behaviour depending on whether or not they are being observed. The experiment has even been performed using atoms, again with the same result, and atoms are large enough to be individually photographed, they are very real solid objects. This odd behaviour of particles is a very real phenomenon.

The double slit experiment is not simply an oddball theory that has no application in the real world. This strange behaviour of particles lies at the very heart of our understanding of the physical properties of the world. Quantum theory is used in many applications, including television and computers, and even explains the nuclear processes taking place inside stars.

One possible explanation for quantum weirdness is a theory concerning the nature of the wave that is passing through the experiment. The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the ‘collapse of the wave function’. The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon or an electron, could ‘travel as a wave but arrive as a particle’. According to the theory, what is passing through the experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a ‘probability wave’. In other words, the particle does not have a definite location, but has a probability of being here or there, or somewhere else entirely. Some locations will be more probable than others, such as the light areas in the interference pattern for example, and some will be less probable, such as in the dark areas. In this theory, an electron that is not being observed does not exist as a particle at all, but has a wave-like property covering the areas of probability where it could be found. Once the electron is observed, the wave function collapses and the electron becomes a particle. This theory rather neatly explains the behaviour of the particles in the double slit experiment. When we are not looking at the particle, the probability wave, of even a single particle, is spread out and will pass through both slits at the same time and arrive at the detector as a wave showing an interference pattern. When we observe the electron by placing detectors at the slits, it is forced into revealing its location which causes the probability wave to collapse into a particle. If the theory is correct, its implications are staggering. What it suggests is that nothing is real until it has been observed!

Nothing is real until it has been observed! This clearly needs thinking about. Are we really saying that in the ‘real’ world – outside of the laboratory – that until a thing has been observed it doesn’t exist? This is precisely what the Copenhagen Interpretation is telling us about reality. This has caused some very well respected cosmologists (Stephen Hawking for one) to worry that this implies that there must actually be something ‘outside’ the universe to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function. John Wheeler puts forward an argument that it is only the presence of conscious observers, in the form of ourselves, that has collapsed the wave function and made the universe exist. If we take this to be true, then the universe only exists because we are looking at it. As this is heading into very deep water I think we will have to leave it there and move on to the next experiment.

Schrödinger ‘s ‘Cat-in-the-Box Experiment’

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the probability wave of an electron requires the act of observation by a conscious observer to collapse it into a definite particle, and thus have a definite location. We can imagine a closed box containing just a single electron. Now until someone looks in the box, the probability wave associated with the electron will fill the box uniformly, thus giving an equal probability of finding the electron anywhere inside the box. If a partition is introduced into the middle of the box that divides it into two equal boxes, still without anyone looking inside, then common sense tells us that the electron must be in one side of the box or the other. But this is not the case according to the Copenhagen Interpretation; that says that the probability wave is still evenly distributed across both half-boxes. This means that there is still a 50:50 chance of finding the electron in either side of the box. When somebody looks into the box the wave will then collapse and the electron will be noticed in one half of the box or the other, but it will only at the moment of observation ‘decide’ which half it will be in. At the same time the probability wave in the other half of the box vanishes. If the box is then closed up again, and the electron no longer observed, its probability wave will again spread out to fill the half box, but cannot spread back into the other half of the box that was empty.

The way that a quantum wave moves is described by Erwin Schrödinger’s wave equation and describes the probability for finding a photon, or electron, at a particular place. Schrödinger did not however, go along with the ‘collapse of the wave function’ theory, he thought it was a nonsense, and designed ‘thought experiments’ to prove his point. In an attempt to demonstrate the foolishness – as he saw it – of quantum theory, Schrödinger devised the cat-in-a-box thought experiment.

In Schrödinger ‘s original thought experiment he used radioactive decay because that also obeys the rules of probability. We however, shall use our box with the partition and electron again, as we are now familiar with it.

Imagine we have our box with the partition in place, and the electron’s probability wave evenly spread between both halves of the box. We have now added a device that will, at a given time, automatically open up one half of the box to the room. There is a 50:50 chance that when opened the box will contain the electron that is now free to enter the room. The room is sealed and has no windows that would allow any outside observations to be made. Inside the sealed room there is a cat, a container of poisonous gas, and an electron detector. The experiment is so designed that if the electron detector detects an electron it will release the poisonous gas into the room, which would prove very unfortunate for the poor cat. If, on the other hand, that half of the box does not contain the electron, the poisonous gas will not be released into the room and our cat, henceforth known as Lucky, will continue to enjoy good health, providing it keeps away from busy roads.

Taking a common sense view of the situation, we would say that when the experiment has run its course, and an observer enters the room, they will find the cat either dead or alive. But we already know enough about quantum theory to realise that common sense doesn’t apply here, and instead we have to turn to the Copenhagen Interpretation for an explanation.

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, when the lid of one half of the box is opened, it is not an electron, or not as the case may be, that is released into the room, but the probability wave of the electron as it has not yet been observed. This raises the question of whether or not the cat can be regarded as a conscious observer. If it can be then where do we draw the line? Would a fly or an ant count? How about a bacterium? As this is again getting into rather deep and murky water, we will skip over this problem and continue with our experiment, otherwise we run the risk of becoming seriously side-tracked. So the probability wave spreads into the room, not an electron (or no electron). The electron detector is itself composed of microscopic entities of the quantum world (atoms, particles and so on) and the interaction of the electron with it would take place at this level, so the detector is also subject to the quantum rules of probability. Taking this view, the wave function of the whole system will not collapse until a conscious observer enters the room. At that moment the electron ‘decides’ whether it is inside the box or in the room, the detector ‘decides’ whether it has detected an electron or not, and the cat ‘decides’ whether it is dead or alive. Until that moment, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the cat is not either dead or alive, it describes the situation as a ‘superposition of states’. Only the act of observation will cause it to become one or the other. Schrödinger described the situation as ‘having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts.’ The Copenhagen Interpretation does not allow for the room to actually contain a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time, or a cat that is neither dead nor alive, suspended in limbo. But contains either a dead cat or a live cat, until someone looks, and it is then that the actual reality of the situation is determined.

Cat lovers please note. This experiment has never been carried out, and never will be. This is not only because it would be a very cruel thing to do, but because it wouldn’t prove anything. An observer upon entering the room would find either a dead cat or a living one, but could not observe what processes preceded this event. Any previous observation would of course defeat the object of the experiment.

The problems highlighted by the cat-in-a-box experiment raise some very deep questions. What for example are the requirements needed to qualify as a ‘conscious observer’? Do the probability waves of particles spread out again when not observed and particles somehow become less ‘real’, as described by the Copenhagen Interpretation? Does the universe exist only because we are here to observe it? Could a cat really be in a ‘superposition of states’, either dead or alive until the moment of observation? This goes entirely against all our common sense experience of life, we would naturally conclude upon finding the cat alive that it had ‘obviously’ been alive all the time. Quantum theory is telling us that we could be very wrong in our thinking regarding what reality really is.

Quantum theory has yet another surprise in store for us, and this time it’s not simply another bizarre phenomenon that challenges our common sense. This time it contradicts one of the central principles of Einstein’s theory of relativity, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. As you can imagine, Einstein was not amused.

The EPR Paradox.

The experiment is so named because it was a thought experiment devised by Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. As with Schrödinger’s cat-in-the-box experiment, its purpose was to expose the ‘foolishness’ of the Copenhagen Interpretation. The experiment focuses on the phenomenon of quantum theory known as ‘non-locality’, which concerns communication between particles. A pair of protons, for example, associated with one another in a configuration called the singlet state will always have a total angular momentum of zero, as they each have equal and opposite amounts of spin. Just as we have seen in the other experiments, the protons will not collapse their probability wave and ‘decide’ which spin to adopt, until they have been observed. If you measure the spin of one proton, according to quantum theory, the other proton instantly ‘knows’ and adopts the opposite spin. So far so good, we have come to expect this sort of behaviour from particles, so what is the problem with this particular experiment?

It is possible, and has been carried out in laboratory tests over a short distance, to split the particles apart and send them in opposite directions and then measure one of them for spin. The instant it is measured, and the spin determined, the other particle adopts the opposite spin. The time interval is zero, the event takes place instantaneously, even though the particles are separated, and theoretically would still do so even if they were separated by a distance measured in light years. This is what upset Einstein, the implication that particles could communicate at faster than light speed, as it is impossible for this to happen according to Einstein’s theory of relativity.

At the time this thought experiment was proposed, in the early 1930’s, just about the time of Schrödinger’s cat-in-the-box thought experiment, it was not actually possible to physically carry out the experiment. Einstein did not live to see it turned into practical reality, which is probably just as well in light of the results produced. This experiment has now actually been carried out over a distance of 10 kilometres and confirmed as correct. Something here is taking place at faster than light speed, although exactly what seems to be a matter of some debate. Regrettably, due to its very nature, no meaningful communication could be made using such a device. Whether or not it will ever have any useful application remains to be seen, but that is not the point. The point is the experiment has proved Einstein wrong, faster than light speed, at least in the quantum world, is a reality. However, in classical physics – at sizes above that of atoms – relativity still remains unchallenged, nothing has been detected at faster than light speed.

As I said at the outset of this section, these three experiments highlight the basic principles involved in quantum theory. I also said they would amaze you, and I hope that you feel that I have kept my word. If you are not amazed by quantum theory, then blame me, for the theory is truly amazing and any disappointment you may have with it can only be due to my inability to do the theory justice.

One last thing you need to know about quantum theory, and that is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg said that the electron was a particle, but a particle which yields only limited information. It is possible to specify where an electron is at a given moment, but we cannot then impose on it a specific speed and direction at the setting-off. Or conversely, if you fire it at a known speed in a certain direction, then you are unable to specify exactly what its starting-point is – or its end-point. The information that an electron carries is limited in its totally. That is, for instance, its speed and its position fit together in such a way that they are confined by the tolerance of the quantum.

The principle of Uncertainty fixed once for all the realisation that all knowledge is limited, that there is no such thing as absolute certainty.

What conclusions can we draw from these experiments?

We need to be very careful in drawing any conclusions from the results of these experiments. All we can say with any confidence is that if we set up the apparatus in a certain way it will produce a certain result. How we interpret those results, the meanings that we attach to them, is nothing more than our way of attempting to make sense of them, and need have no relationship at all to the actual reality of the situation. To imagine that a probability wave passes through both slits in the double slit experiment helps us to understand what may be happening, but it is in fact nothing more than proposing an idea that meets the criteria of what has been observed; there may be no such thing as a probability wave. It may be the case that we are completely missing some fundamental property of particles, a property that as yet remains undetected by our equipment and experiments. There may be things going on that we are completely unaware of.

What quantum mechanics tell us is that nothing is real and that we cannot say anything about what things are doing when we are not looking at them. In the world of quantum mechanics, the laws of physics that are familiar from the everyday world no longer work. Instead, events are governed by probabilities. Einstein was so disgusted by the whole notion that he made his famous remark, “Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secrets of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice”.

What do I think?

It seems illogical that we need two completely different laws to explain the behaviour of objects, dependent on how large or small the object is. Why is it that the laws of cause and effect, that work so well in the everyday world, breakdown in the world of the very small, when everything in the everyday world is made up of the very small?

It just does not make any sense, but like it or not, until a theoretical physicist comes up with a theory that incorporates both Quantum Mechanics and Relativity we just have to admit that we do not really know what is going on. However, one thing I am absolutely clear on is that an electron, or photon, doesn’t ‘know’ anything, anymore than a frozen pea does. When you remove a frozen pea from the freezer and place it in a warm room you do not gasp in amazement when it defrosts and ask how did it ‘know’ to defrost. You do not try and trick it into not defrosting by leaving it in the freezer and turning off the freezer. This is of course because we understand the laws of thermodynamics. Particles do not ‘know ‘ anything!

When physicists ask the question, ‘how does a particle ‘know’ something’? they are of course using the term loosely. What they are really asking is ‘what are the forces acting upon the particle that we have not detected? What interactions are taking place that we have not detected?’

That is the problem. Something is going on at a level that we are completely unaware of. However, the idea of probability waves as an explanation is nothing more than an attempt to describe what is observed in the quantum world by the Copenhagen Interpretation, and is of course a purely theoretical concept.

It may be possible that we need to develop a new form of logic to be able to describe what is happening at the quantum level. It may be that it is not enough to say that a statement is either true or false, we may have to introduce a three-valued quantum logic which allows the additional status of ‘undecided’. This would mean that a statement that is not true need not be false.

At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. Military forces stand poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.”

~World Meteorological Organization, 2007

The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915.

Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.

Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S. Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.

Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]

Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”

The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on manipulation of the ionosphere, magnetosphere and atmosphere, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.

In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown.

Contrails Are Chemtrails

Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7] H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8] Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.

Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.

“We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”

“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully operational.”

Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in 1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird surfaced, admitting that his testimony was false. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what was happening. [9]

Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10] (Case Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their recommendations.)

Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:

“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2 weeks.”

In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]

Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:

The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.”

Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large, powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward governments is nonsensical.

Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although, lawmakers are still considering it since much can be earned on the scheme, to wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)

Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and water to offset the deleterious effects of industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.

“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries, nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan B.’”

ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over ten years.”

Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage. “At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18] This year, National Geographic and Yes! Magazine dedicated entire issues to water.

~~~

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects.”

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]: (Here is a link to a downloadable full version pdf of the declassified report:) http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;

2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;

Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 Weather Modification Assn. published its position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21]

In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its position statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, WMO asserts it is still “an emerging technology” today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations.

Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research, although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its Index page.

At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:

“[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.”

The report published the following images provided by a former meteorologist at the Ontario Weather Service, showing spraying schemes for Europe. For December 6, 2008:

In the next series of images covering January 3-5, 2010, the authors assert that “The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period”:

Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.

They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after this.

The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics “an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:

‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.’”

~~~

Recommendations

“Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on human health and the environment from EnMod programs.

Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.

Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.

Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S. denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:

The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological agents on civilian populations.

Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977.

Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public Law 95-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct, it seems, in asserting that such programs are legal, if reprehensible, in the U.S.

Conclusion

For centuries, military leaders have recognized that it rains after a heavy battle. But harnessing that power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task. (See Brief History, below.) The historical record has many such stories: misdirected hurricanes, farm wars, massive flooding and mudslides. Eventually, though, science met the challenge.

If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to jam enemy radar, the modern environmental modification program is 67 years old. We saw its military use in Vietnam in the 1960s. China openly used it in 2008 to clear the skies for the Olympics.

In 1978, world leaders addressed the moral and ecological issues of using such technologies as a weapon of war by banning their use. Almost thirty years later, in 2007, the World Meteorological Organization complained that EnMod funds were moving from research into operations. Three years later, in May of this year, the United Nations proposed the ban of EnMod operations, calling for further research.

Even with a couple obvious holes in research, the Case Orange report is essentially correct: officials are spraying the skies, and they’re not fully disclosing these activities. Corporate media is colluding with officials in keeping these operations secret from the public.

But, the public has a right to know and governments have a duty to fully disclose all environmental modification operations. The impacts on our health and environment need to be fully understood, and informed consent from the populace needs to be a part of any EnMod operation.

~~~

A Brief History of Cloud Seeding

Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26] Verifiably successful rainmaking attempts did not occur until 1915.

1915 To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield, who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could attract clouds. San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches. The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]

1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when [the British Royal Air Force subjected Hamburg] to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]

1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth of three miles in the cloud. [29]

1949 Project Cirrus: From a desert near Albuquerque, Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico. [31]

1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]

1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]

1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]

1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar 1971. [35]

1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit with the toxic fallout. [36]

2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin. Russian authorities said it was an optical illusion. [38]

This is by no means a comprehensive list; indeed, volumes are dedicated to the subject.

[10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976, effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm

[26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf